Call for Southwark Council to re-consider the cumulative impact on Burgess Park west of the Parkhouse Street developments Reject tall towers development beside Burgess Park west Four new developments with 10+ storey towers are planned along Parkhouse Street. The cumulative impact of the four developments will be detrimental to Burgess Park and should be rejected. Acceptable redevelopment alongside Burgess Park should meet the following principles; ● Increase the set back to 10 meters, double the current 5 meters proposed by Planning. ● Reduce the height of the buildings to a maximum of six storeys alongside the park – this is proposed height is based on the tree height and screening to reduce overlooking, impact of 1 height and mass on St George’s church and substantially reduce the impact of shadows . There will be an almost continuous wall of new 8, 10 and 11 storey new developments built along the park boundary. This will change forever this part of Burgess Park and impact on thousands of park users, by causing: • Cumulative impact of 10 and 11 storey towers shadowing impact on park users and wildlife ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 Tree height and screening of buildings is illustrated by examples from central London parks in this report. ​ ​ Friends of Burgess Park February 2020 • Decreasing park users wellbeing due to overlooking and encroachment of a green tranquil 2 space as well as less use of the space as it becomes less appealing (due to shade and overlooking) 3 • Reducing the heritage and cultural benefit of beautiful views of St George’s church tower ​ to the local community. Currently the view is enjoyed from both the Old Kent Road, Trafalgar Avenue and Walworth Road encompassing long views of green space and the sky as well as the Grade II listed church. Developers modelling of height and bulk from different specific view points as agreed with Planning (EG for the Camberwell Union Scheme and Dolphin Living) do not adequately show the extent to which the height and bulk of ALL the new building will impact on views the from all of the main and secondary entrances and main routes through the park. Views of park users “ I don’t want to be over-looked.” ​ “I’m worried about the impact on the wildlife. This is meant to be a nature area.” “ The new Burgess Park west area is really well used which stops anti-social behaviour.” More research by FOBP with park users planned during March. Mitigation of the impact of cumulative development on Burgess Park 4 Burgess Park is already a well-used park . The new developments and cumulative impact of the many proposed developments and their additional residents will impact on park use, wear and tear, 5 facilities etc . All new developments beside and close to Burgess Park should contribute positively to the environment, biodiversity and wildlife, with the following measures: - Bat boxes, Swift bricks - Planting/landscaping which supports the 2020 Southwark Biodiversity Action Plan - Green roofs and walls incorporated into buildings - Lighting which causes minimum intrusion to the park to avoid light pollution on wildlife, especially insects and bats in the new wildlife area - Minimise noise pollution into the park - Protection for tree roots which spread beyond the park boundary into development site achieving British Standard 5837 2 Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study 2008 - 9.1.2 Sound – a correlation between sound and tranquillity definitely exists, but is more evident in terms of elements that take away from tranquillity, rather than those that contribute to it. This means that people notice the negative effects of unwanted noise more often than they appreciate the positive effects of pleasant sounds. 3 In accordance with planning policy, the impact to the heritage value needs to be considered in the round, taking into account where the heritage value derives and the contribution of setting towards that value. Camberwell Union Non-technical Environmental Statement Expert Witness -Rule Six Party 4 Numbers of park users have grown since the 2012 Revitalisation which landscaped the park. The Burgess Park Masterplan, latest version 2015 in section 4.2 Public demand, it states: "When it officially re-opened to the public in the summer of 2012 the local community embraced the revitalised [Burgess] park, and as a result use has increased and diversified significantly. The public demand can be determined through consultation, visible wear and tear and resultant maintenance issues for facilities across the park.” 5 The Burgess Park Masterplan, latest version 2015 “There is evidence across the park of facilities that are not meeting the demands of the public through the increased wear and tear, or available capacity. Play equipment, sports pitches, toilets, BBQ facilities and outdoor gym equipment are all insufficient across the park. Their current usage is evidenced as not meeting the needs of the local community.” Friends of Burgess Park February 2020 - Set back of new building from the park to be maximised (more than min 5m) to ensure minimal damage to tree roots and soil systems - Reuse and repair of buildings, boundary walls etc to minimise environmental impact, eliminating unnecessary construction disturbance to nature reserve and park users and reduce raw material usage. - Ecology assessment of impact on wildlife especially of overshadowing of both individual schemes and the cumulative impact for example with a Phase II survey Burgess Park to benefit from contributions which enhance the environment/biodiversity and ​ contribute to health and wellbeing: - Tree planting for Burgess Park to screen the views from within the park of large buildings 6 - Contributions for play and youth provision for over 12s with ongoing sport, play, leisure, cultural activity - Contributions for play/leisure facilities for under 12s and under 5s - Contributions to the repair of park infrastructure due to wear and tear because of high levels of usage - Additional toilet provision - Redevelopment of the Old Library Bath and Washhouse for the local community Some of the above should be conditions of planning approval and some would be suitable to be funded via S106 agreements. Balancing the need of park users for green space against new housing development – making the planning policy case Cumulatively the developments do not deliver benefit against the holistic goals of national and local planning policy. They do not deliver on wider environmental and social/health objectives and for this site beside Burgess Park these aspects of the planning balance should have great weight. Planning policy The development does not comply with the requirements of the National Planning Framework, Section 2, Achieving sustainable development. The development will have a negative impact on the social and environmental objectives. The scheme does not deliver on the social objective “with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being. Or the environmental objective “to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment”. The proposals do not positively support the new London Plan Urban Greening factor. The proposed development does not conform to the current Southwark Plan policy on tall buildings. The new Southwark Plan is in draft form and includes comments from the public consultation on the changes to the tall buildings policy and the Burgess Business Park site allocation. The Burgess Business Park/Camberwell Union Planning Inquiry outcome is unknown. Preserving high quality green space for the benefit of all local residents must give greater weight to the environmental, health and social elements in determining the planning balance for a development which will reduce the quality and benefits available to local people now and in the future. 6 None of the developments are proving all the play and amenity space expected by planning policies; all refer to the closeness of Burgess Park. Planning SPGs acknowledge that investing in existing play and leisure facilities is appropriate rather than poor quality provision on site. Friends of Burgess Park February 2020 Height of buildings and density – The development of 6, 8 and 10 storeys exceeds the current policy ​ ​ ​ on density of accommodation. The design is not exemplary because of the reasons set out below: impact on St George’s Church, character of the area, impact and overshadowing Burgess Park. The proportion of social rent does not meet the needs of local people. Impact on St George’s Church - The view across the park with St George’s Church tower is to ​ over-bearing and impacts on the views of the St George’s tower and the chimney for the Old Library Bath and Washhouse. These are important local landmark buildings. The Revitalisation 2012 landscape design focused on these long views across the park framing of the church with pathways which aligned with this view. The church tower is above the tree line but would be overwhelmed by the height and bulk of all the proposed 10 and 11 storey buildings (as well as 14 potentially from Camberwell Union). Set back – Despite the setback of 5m the buildings remain very close to the park. Across the majority ​ rest of the park buildings are set back to the other side of a road or in a small number of locations at the other end of gardens. The buildings are extremely dominant and due to closeness are not directly comparable to Camberwell Fields or Aylesbury developments such as Arments Court which are both set back by width of a road and pavements eg appx 12 to 18 meters. (Manual for Street Dept of Transport 2007) Building design and massing impact on Burgess Park – The height of 8, 10 and 11 storey blocks will ​ be intrusive to Burgess Park. The overshadowing of the north facing blocks will cast long shadows during most of the year and impact on the wildlife.